Evil tactics or aero flaw ?

[Bagwan]

Ham and Toto both mentioned questionable tactics , but I think this isn't to do with how evil the red team is , but , rather the aero demanding drivers drive these cars differently as they evolve .

We've seen in these last two races , a car go around the outside , just ahead , getting tagged by a car inside , locking up .
The reason seems to be that the outside car is taking the air off the inside car's front wing , thus reducing downforce and inducing the lock-ups .
On the Sky coverage , Ant showed us Max and Kimi through the same corner , and , though it was just about identical , the difference was that Max left more room , and Kimi did everything he could that time , to stay out of the slipstream , keeping the wind on his wing .
The point of mentioning this is to illustrate that it took both drivers understanding the dynamics of these super-sensitive aero packages to get them both through the corner .


With this being essentially a flaw in the aero rules , should this be taken into account when assessing these incidents ?
The Grosjean and Sainz incident would be another example of this issue , it would seem .


And , by the way , I don't believe there were any evil tactics at all , just so the thread doesn't steer off course .

What do you cats think ?

[airshifter]

It does seem that often drivers are using "creative" lines to avoid dirty air, and or intentionally diving down the inside when close to another driver, in hopes of taking some air off the other drivers wing. In the case of the Lewis/Kimi incident, I would think the last thing Lewis would want to do is take the air of Kimi's wing, but at the same time if you hold a tight line into a corner it might happen.

It's the proverbial catch 22 situation, with drivers having to be in touch enough with the aero to use it to their advantage, and hopefully not forget when it can get them into trouble quickly.

[Zico]

It does seem that often drivers are using "creative" lines to avoid dirty air, and or intentionally diving down the inside when close to another driver, in hopes of taking some air off the other drivers wing. In the case of the Lewis/Kimi incident, I would think the last thing Lewis would want to do is take the air of Kimi's wing, but at the same time if you hold a tight line into a corner it might happen.

It's the proverbial catch 22 situation, with drivers having to be in touch enough with the aero to use it to their advantage, and hopefully not forget when it can get them into trouble quickly.


Yeah, that was my take also.

I think if Kimi was going to take Lewis out the race he'd have made a better job of it than that.
Was a bit disappointing to hear that suggestion uttered when they know the score better than anyone.

[Bagwan]

Doesn't it really only come down to how much space you must leave if you want to make that outside pass ?
It's kind of like putting a guy onto the curb inside and expecting him to have grip as you pass him .
In a way , it's worse , because they can't see that lack of grip , and it's sudden , it seems .

It needs to be understood , by both the stewards and the drivers , especially because it is basically invisible , and very pronounced .

[Bagwan]

Yeah, that was my take also.

I think if Kimi was going to take Lewis out the race he'd have made a better job of it than that.
Was a bit disappointing to hear that suggestion uttered when they know the score better than anyone.

Listen to some folks and Kimi isn't very good at anything , so it would be unsurprising if he screwed this up , too .

Certainly disappointing suggestion , indeed , and , in fact , worthy of an apology from both Lewis and Toto .

[The Black Knight]

Listen to some folks and Kimi isn't very good at anything , so it would be unsurprising if he screwed this up , too .

Certainly disappointing suggestion , indeed , and , in fact , worthy of an apology from both Lewis and Toto .

Let us look at it historically.

Silverstone – Kimi ruins Hamilton’s race and got less of a penalty than Hamilton did for it i.e. only 10 seconds, whereas Hamilton lost 27 seconds sifting through the field.
Paul Riccard – Vettel ruins Bottas’s race. Vettel got a pathetic 10 seconds and still ended up ahead of Bottas after it.
Mexico (2017) – Vettel hit (I would say very much intentionally) Hamilton after turn 3, gets no penalty and ruins Hamilton’s race
Baku 2017 – Vettel intentionally drives into the side of Hamilton. Vettel ends up ahead of Hamilton in the race.

I can’t think of once incident where a Mercedes has hit a Ferrari in that time frame. Maybe it has happened but I certainly can’t think of one.

Now, I don’t think Silverstone or Paul Riccard were actually intentional but it was incompetence from both drivers in both instances. Both Mercedes drivers and Mercedes itself lost out on a big haul of points. Hamilton would have quite likely won yesterday given the race he had, Bottas would probably have ended up second in France. This is the difference between leading or winning either championship. Each time Ferrari has been at fault, and each time they have come off better than the Mercedes they hit after the incident. Kimi may ended up behind Hamilton yesterday but Hamilton still could have won Silverstone or been in with a big chance anyway whereas he had no chance yesterday.

Ferrari owe Mercedes an apology for their clumsiness not the other way around, mate. The aero problem has always been there. You’re behind another car, you lose downforce. It may be exacerbated by the new aerodynamic rules but it certainly isn’t anything new and, as the best drivers in the world, they should be able to cope with and predict it regardless.

One thing that does put a spanner in the works for me is that it was James Allison, Ferrari's ex Technical Director, whom suggested Ferrari may be intentionally hitting Mercedes. It's interesting that this is coming from an ex Ferrari man with direct working knowledge of the teams racing etiquette. James isn't the kind of guy to just to make unfounded accusations, so it makes me wonder what else he witnessed at Ferrari that he is unable to speak about which was also unsporting.

[gm99]

Ex-employees, like ex-partners, are maybe not the most trustworthy source.

[Bagwan]

Let us look at it historically.

Silverstone – Kimi ruins Hamilton’s race and got less of a penalty than Hamilton did for it i.e. only 10 seconds, whereas Hamilton lost 27 seconds sifting through the field.
Paul Riccard – Vettel ruins Bottas’s race. Vettel got a pathetic 10 seconds and still ended up ahead of Bottas after it.
Mexico (2017) – Vettel hit (I would say very much intentionally) Hamilton after turn 3, gets no penalty and ruins Hamilton’s race
Baku 2017 – Vettel intentionally drives into the side of Hamilton. Vettel ends up ahead of Hamilton in the race.

I can’t think of once incident where a Mercedes has hit a Ferrari in that time frame. Maybe it has happened but I certainly can’t think of one.

Now, I don’t think Silverstone or Paul Riccard were actually intentional but it was incompetence from both drivers in both instances. Both Mercedes drivers and Mercedes itself lost out on a big haul of points. Hamilton would have quite likely won yesterday given the race he had, Bottas would probably have ended up second in France. This is the difference between leading or winning either championship. Each time Ferrari has been at fault, and each time they have come off better than the Mercedes they hit after the incident. Kimi may ended up behind Hamilton yesterday but Hamilton still could have won Silverstone or been in with a big chance anyway whereas he had no chance yesterday.

Ferrari owe Mercedes an apology for their clumsiness not the other way around, mate. The aero problem has always been there. You’re behind another car, you lose downforce. It may be exacerbated by the new aerodynamic rules but it certainly isn’t anything new and, as the best drivers in the world, they should be able to cope with and predict it regardless.

One thing that does put a spanner in the works for me is that it was James Allison, Ferrari's ex Technical Director, whom suggested Ferrari may be intentionally hitting Mercedes. It's interesting that this is coming from an ex Ferrari man with direct working knowledge of the teams racing etiquette. James isn't the kind of guy to just to make unfounded accusations, so it makes me wonder what else he witnessed at Ferrari that he is unable to speak about which was also unsporting.

Well , Lewis just said he was sorry and that the suggestion he made that Kimi had done it intentionally was "dumb" .
Thank you , Lewis . Done and dusted .

I get what you say about drivers needing to cope with the aero , but that needs to include the guy making the pass as well .
If you take the air off his wing , you get tagged .

So , don't do it .

[The Black Knight]

Well , Lewis just said he was sorry and that the suggestion he made that Kimi had done it intentionally was "dumb" .
Thank you , Lewis . Done and dusted .

I get what you say about drivers needing to cope with the aero , but that needs to include the guy making the pass as well .
If you take the air off his wing , you get tagged .

So , don't do it .

This was after Raikkonen apology. Raikkonen should probably have apologized to him directly after the race. As for your comment on aero, I was on about the guy making the pass and guys can't have eyes on the back of their heads. I don't think Lewis and Raikkonen was an aero thing as Raikkonen at that point was the only on on that part of the track for the race, so he should have not had any aero problems i.e. he was not following. It was just a mistake by Raikkonen and I don't think you can apportion any blame to Hamilton on it as he gave him enough room.

As you say, done and dusted. We now move on.

[The Black Knight]

Ex-employees, like ex-partners, are maybe not the most trustworthy source.

Or they are maybe a very valuable source of information no one else knew.

[Bagwan]

This was after Raikkonen apology. Raikkonen should probably have apologized to him directly after the race. As for your comment on aero, I was on about the guy making the pass and guys can't have eyes on the back of their heads. I don't think Lewis and Raikkonen was an aero thing as Raikkonen at that point was the only on on that part of the track for the race, so he should have not had any aero problems i.e. he was not following. It was just a mistake by Raikkonen and I don't think you can apportion any blame to Hamilton on it as he gave him enough room.

As you say, done and dusted. We now move on.

The similarity of these last two Red/Silver prangs is that the passing driver ran across the nose of the one being passed , taking the air off his front wing , causing a lock-up and subsequent collision .
You can't stop them going down the inside for a pass and you wouldn't want to do so at all .
You also can't stop them from going around the outside , either .

But , you can take into consideration , when judging the results of incidents such as these last two , or three , if you include RoGro and Carlos , that the guy inside is sometimes as much the victim if he loses , suddenly , the downforce on his front wing .

If you don't , then the guy inside , if he's behind at all , will have to back out of it much earlier to avoid the lock-up .
That could leave us with much less chance of them being side-by-side in the corners .

I don't want that .

[Nitrodaze]

Ham and Toto both mentioned questionable tactics , but I think this isn't to do with how evil the red team is , but , rather the aero demanding drivers drive these cars differently as they evolve .

We've seen in these last two races , a car go around the outside , just ahead , getting tagged by a car inside , locking up .
The reason seems to be that the outside car is taking the air off the inside car's front wing , thus reducing downforce and inducing the lock-ups .
On the Sky coverage , Ant showed us Max and Kimi through the same corner , and , though it was just about identical , the difference was that Max left more room , and Kimi did everything he could that time , to stay out of the slipstream , keeping the wind on his wing .
The point of mentioning this is to illustrate that it took both drivers understanding the dynamics of these super-sensitive aero packages to get them both through the corner .


With this being essentially a flaw in the aero rules , should this be taken into account when assessing these incidents ?
The Grosjean and Sainz incident would be another example of this issue , it would seem .


And , by the way , I don't believe there were any evil tactics at all , just so the thread doesn't steer off course .

What do you cats think ?

Losing front down force due to close proximity to a car ahead has always been a known problem since the front wing emerged in F1. When you couple this with cold brakes and tyres at the start of the race, this make for all the first lap crashes we have seen over the years. Hamilton left a lot of space for Kimi which l guess, Kimi saw as an opening to exploit and attempted to go for it. This there is racing. In the end, it did not ruin both of their races as they both ended up on the podium.

From a championship perspective, it is just 8 points between Vettel and Hamilton. Hence the fight is still fully on. We have seen leads of up to 14 points swing each way, thus l think it would come down to which of the two can hang on to their advantage till the end of the season. The way Mercedes is looking at the moment, the momentum is very much with Ferrari. This year, they have not disappointed so far.

Mercedes look weak all over. Poor at Strategy in the heat of the races, third best chassis it seems and Engine advantage also seem to have disappeared. They are definitely feeling the heat of competition this season.

[The Black Knight]

The similarity of these last two Red/Silver prangs is that the passing driver ran across the nose of the one being passed , taking the air off his front wing , causing a lock-up and subsequent collision .
You can't stop them going down the inside for a pass and you wouldn't want to do so at all .
You also can't stop them from going around the outside , either .

But , you can take into consideration , when judging the results of incidents such as these last two , or three , if you include RoGro and Carlos , that the guy inside is sometimes as much the victim if he loses , suddenly , the downforce on his front wing .

If you don't , then the guy inside , if he's behind at all , will have to back out of it much earlier to avoid the lock-up .
That could leave us with much less chance of them being side-by-side in the corners .

I don't want that .


Neither do I but the point I’m making here is that Kimi should not have lost downforce in his case. In France, Sebastien was directly behind Lewis so he was always going to lose downforce. Kimi, on the other hand, was alongside Lewis and there was no hole punched in the air he was driving through so he has no excuse for his lock up.

Sebastien should have known better to brake earlier. Kimi should have known better as to not lock up.

[Bagwan]

Neither do I but the point I’m making here is that Kimi should not have lost downforce in his case. In France, Sebastien was directly behind Lewis so he was always going to lose downforce. Kimi, on the other hand, was alongside Lewis and there was no hole punched in the air he was driving through so he has no excuse for his lock up.

Sebastien should have known better to brake earlier. Kimi should have known better as to not lock up.

So , both should have given up earlier ?
I don't want that .

The point here for me is that the leading driver does have some responsibility in the incidents because if he had left more room , the inside guy would have been less likely to take him out .
Since , in all of these three cases it appeared that enough space was given to that guy inside , yet all three got tagged by that guy locking up , it looks to me that it's in the passing driver's best interest to not squeeze the guy behind too much , lest he cause this effect .
It has lead me to wonder if the aero kit on these cars has just become too sensitive to disruptions in the air flow .

Remember , these things can't follow each other closely in corners at all , so we shouldn't be surprised at this effect .
As such , I think it should be taken into account more seriously when judging these events .

[The Black Knight]

So , both should have given up earlier ?
I don't want that .

The point here for me is that the leading driver does have some responsibility in the incidents because if he had left more room , the inside guy would have been less likely to take him out .
Since , in all of these three cases it appeared that enough space was given to that guy inside , yet all three got tagged by that guy locking up , it looks to me that it's in the passing driver's best interest to not squeeze the guy behind too much , lest he cause this effect .
It has lead me to wonder if the aero kit on these cars has just become too sensitive to disruptions in the air flow .

Remember , these things can't follow each other closely in corners at all , so we shouldn't be surprised at this effect .
As such , I think it should be taken into account more seriously when judging these events .

The leading driver has zero responsibility in this case, as did Bottas have absolutely zero responsibility in Paul Riccard. It is wholly the responsibility of the driver making the pass to do so successfully once the car in front 1) moves once and 2) leaves enough room, which Hamilton did. That’s it. In both cases Bottas and Hamilton left more than enough room, just both Ferrari drivers had lock ups. Maybe Ferrari have an issue with the locking of breaks under heavy fuel load. I don't know but it's something that has to stop. If they can't sort it out, the team should be punished.

Ultimately both were one of those things that happen in racing but you can only excuse it up to a point.. I do think the aero has become very sensitive but, in the case of Kimi, he should not have lost any downforce as he was never in Hamilton’s dirty air.

[Bagwan]

I know those rules , but , just as they've had to add DRS to cope with the aero kit taking away close proximity racing , I believe they should take it into account when assessing the incidents .

If we leave the Kimi one out of the conversation (even if I think it fits) , we still have the same scenario happening with Romain and Carlos in the same race , so it's not just a Red thing , or a start of the race thing .

We'll have more of this until they come up with some other weird artificial gizmo to counter it .
At some point they'll have to ban butterflies and moths from the track area because of the turbulence they cause .

[truefan72]

I know those rules , but , just as they've had to add DRS to cope with the aero kit taking away close proximity racing , I believe they should take it into account when assessing the incidents .

If we leave the Kimi one out of the conversation (even if I think it fits) , we still have the same scenario happening with Romain and Carlos in the same race , so it's not just a Red thing , or a start of the race thing .

We'll have more of this until they come up with some other weird artificial gizmo to counter it .
At some point they'll have to ban butterflies and moths from the track area because of the turbulence they cause .

erm...not sure what you are talking about
the grosjean sainz thing was a marginal racing incidents and more likely Carlos simply turning in with no regard to his surroundings.
I've read through all these posts and tbh none of them have anything to do withe aero or turbulence or whatever.
If that were the case all 20 drivers would be banging into each other demolition derby style
Why is it so hard to accept that in both cases the ferrari drivers were completely at fault?
and due to some suspect race stewardship they both managed to come off easy in effectively punting off their main rival.
If it were the other way around you would be screaming bloody murder not finding some intricate way to apportion blame on aero packaging.
While i do agree that both incidents in france and england were not intentional, it is the severity of the punishment that leaves a lot to be desired.
I think vettel only got a 5sec penalty for france. and Kimi got a 10 second one in silverstone. That is nowhere near sufficient for either of those incidents,
The only conspiracy i see is an unwillingness by the fIA and the race stewards to met out proper punishment in order to manipulate the competition at the top.

[The Black Knight]

I know those rules , but , just as they've had to add DRS to cope with the aero kit taking away close proximity racing , I believe they should take it into account when assessing the incidents .

If we leave the Kimi one out of the conversation (even if I think it fits) , we still have the same scenario happening with Romain and Carlos in the same race , so it's not just a Red thing , or a start of the race thing .

We'll have more of this until they come up with some other weird artificial gizmo to counter it .
At some point they'll have to ban butterflies and moths from the track area because of the turbulence they cause .

Drivers follow each other all the time into the first corners in Silverstone and all other grand prix’s throughout the year. For the most part, drivers have managed to avoid each other. There has been the potential for dozens of more collisions in the past 8 races. That didn’t happen. Why? Because drivers were careful. There have always been first lap incidents and I don’t see that there are more this year than there have been any other. Kimi and Vettel made mistakes, there is no more to it.

I don’t mean any offence when I say this, but I have noticed that sometimes you tend over analyse incidents and look for something that doesn’t exist.

As for Grosjean and Sainz, we had an almost identical situation with Kimi and Max a couple of laps later. Both of them avoided touching each other. The reason was because on the inside Kimi realized a collision may happen and took a different line over the kerbs to Grosjean in order avoid it. To give credit to him when it is due, it was an example of great driving from Kimi. On the other hand, Grosjean did not have that realization which is why the crash ultimately happened. Anthony Davidson did a great analysis on it after the show and both incidents are almost identical except for how Grosjean and Kimi responded to it. I don’t put blame on Sainz for that incident as it was completely avoidable from Grosjean’s point of view.

[Starter]

erm...not sure what you are talking about
the grosjean sainz thing was a marginal racing incidents and more likely Carlos simply turning in with no regard to his surroundings.
I've read through all these posts and tbh none of them have anything to do withe aero or turbulence or whatever.
If that were the case all 20 drivers would be banging into each other demolition derby style
Why is it so hard to accept that in both cases the ferrari drivers were completely at fault?
and due to some suspect race stewardship they both managed to come off easy in effectively punting off their main rival.
If it were the other way around you would be screaming bloody murder not finding some intricate way to apportion blame on aero packaging.
While i do agree that both incidents in france and england were not intentional, it is the severity of the punishment that leaves a lot to be desired.
I think vettel only got a 5sec penalty for france. and Kimi got a 10 second one in silverstone. That is nowhere near sufficient for either of those incidents,
The only conspiracy i see is an unwillingness by the fIA and the race stewards to met out proper punishment in order to manipulate the competition at the top.
I agree with your last point for sure. In both cases room was left and in both cases there was contact. That's all on the over taking driver.

Now to the other point on aero. Can someone explain to me how tactically taking air off an opponents front wing is any different from taking a non traditional line in order to make your opponent go the long way round and not down the inside or forcing them to try and get by on the marbles? All are tactical moves during the race like using a slower car to block your pursuer. There's no contact involved and no running your opponent off the track in any of those cases.

And the one other point on the latest incident. It seems all assume that Kimi understeered because of sudden loss of aero. The other possibility is that he just screwed up and went too deep on relatively cold tires. It does happen you know.

[Bagwan]

I agree with your last point for sure. In both cases room was left and in both cases there was contact. That's all on the over taking driver.

Now to the other point on aero. Can someone explain to me how tactically taking air off an opponents front wing is any different from taking a non traditional line in order to make your opponent go the long way round and not down the inside or forcing them to try and get by on the marbles? All are tactical moves during the race like using a slower car to block your pursuer. There's no contact involved and no running your opponent off the track in any of those cases.

And the one other point on the latest incident. It seems all assume that Kimi understeered because of sudden loss of aero. The other possibility is that he just screwed up and went too deep on relatively cold tires. It does happen you know.

"tactically taking air off an opponents front wing" is the central point I am making in this thread .
If you steal the air , and you're too close to him he may hit you , whether you leave the rules-required one car width or not .

In no way does that absolutely absolve the guy following from guilt in the incident , however , it does show that the guy ahead has his role in creating the low pressure that causes it .


One question here now comes to mind .
Who were the drivers in the Seb/Valterie and Kimi/Lewis tangles who were the ones making the passes ?

[Nitrodaze]

"tactically taking air off an opponents front wing" is the central point I am making in this thread .
If you steal the air , and you're too close to him he may hit you , whether you leave the rules-required one car width or not .

In no way does that absolutely absolve the guy following from guilt in the incident , however , it does show that the guy ahead has his role in creating the low pressure that causes it .


One question here now comes to mind .
Who were the drivers in the Seb/Valterie and Kimi/Lewis tangles who were the ones making the passes ?

Bagwan, it cuts both ways. Drivers of cars behind know they are susceptible to losing their downforce at the front while trying to pass cars in front at a chicane. It is part of the weakness of being behind without the aid of battery boost etc. Removing the air that provide downforce to the car behind is a risky but highly effective defensive tactics. It is not stealing it a such but merely depriving the car behind of it strategically. No rules against it and there should not be one l think.

[Bagwan]

Bagwan, it cuts both ways. Drivers of cars behind know they are susceptible to losing their downforce at the front while trying to pass cars in front at a chicane. It is part of the weakness of being behind without the aid of battery boost etc. Removing the air that provide downforce to the car behind is a risky but highly effective defensive tactics. It is not stealing it a such but merely depriving the car behind of it strategically. No rules against it and there should not be one l think.

It does , Daze (sorry , couldn't resist) .
It does cut both ways .

Drivers ahead take the risk if they go around the outside whilst making a pass , and that risk is made more severe the closer in they chose to position their car .
Driver being passed around the outside take the risk that the opposition will leave them enough undisturbed air to come down to a speed at which they can negotiate the corner inside , in that space which is technically allowed .

The race for that corner was won by Bottas , who , but for a few feet more room , would have sailed it through the next corner ahead easily .
And , Sebastian might have been properly compromised , as Valterie had planned , onto the marbles mid-corner , leaving him vulnerable to the guy behind him .